Tuesday, September 06, 2011

Those of you who aren't seeing that link, click here or type http://youtu.be/R37zkizucPU into your browsers. The clip came courtesy of Waylon Lewis who posted it as part of this article in his online journal Elephant.

Lewis drew the connection between what Louis C.K. says in this clip and the idea of having a teacher in Buddhism. I thought it was a brilliant and very apt connection. What Louis C.K. says he learned from George Carlin reminds me a lot of what I learned from my teachers Tim McCarthy and Gudo Nishijima. Louis C.K. did not set out to remake himself in the image of George Carlin. He didn't copy Carlin's offstage behavior. He didn't tell jokes that Carlin made up. He didn't set himself up as the new George Carlin.

And yet he learned the deeper truth embedded in Carlin's work and he learned how to make that truth his own. He learned how to express George Carlin's approach to comedy in his own way. If Carlin had had a lineage to pass on, he would have been right in passing it on to Louis C.K.

As Shunryu Suzuki said in 1962:

"If you want to meditate you must have (the) instruction of (the) right teacher, especially when you want to meditate at home. It will take at least six months before you get your own right posture. Everyone has their own right posture but without instructions you cannot find it. For it to be your true posture, there must be (the) spirit which is called (the) Essence of Mind. Without spirit it cannot be your own. So we say, 'When you become yourself then Zen becomes Zen.'"

190 comments:

That's actually a really sweet clip. I think Louie C.K. is hands down one of, if not the, funniest comedians of this generation--and ranks up there with George and the other all-time greats.

The kind of comedy he does actually feels like it approaches "zen" or Buddhist comedy, if there was such a thing.

It's funny because there's been a ton of stuff over on Zen Forum Internationa (where I lurk) about teachers and submission to authority, etc.

I tend to side with the anti-authority types.

And yet I've had pretty much one teacher of meditation for over a decade. Just spoke to him yesterday and he always inspires me, much like what Louie said about Carlin in that clip.

I do think it's been lovely, it's been quite wonderful for me to have access to a person that inspires me the way my teacher does. And I think that is the best a teacher can do for their student.

The student HAS to do the work, has to see the things and have the understandings on an experiential level. Nobody can give me anything, nobody can just mind meld and hand it over--at least, not yet anyway. Maybe when the iPhone 6 comes out...

But we can inspire one another. And seeing a living breathing person who does what I want to do--in this case, lives life with freedom and joy and clarity and mindfulness--that is incredibly inspiring.

Lately I've started to actually believe that there is no difference between me and my teacher, except for time and work and effort. That's the only separation.

And yes, it's a big difference but I keep working and keep sticking to it, just like Louie did with his standup.

One thing to consider, if we use the Louie C.K. analogy with George Carlin...

Louie didn't specifically intern with Carlin or sit at his feet. He just listened to the guy's comedy and heard him talk on a CD about his process.

I think in this day and age we have access to enough literature and video, etc., to get a glimpse of what a good teacher has to say.

Of course I think it's probably easier in many ways to really have personal interaction with a teacher--but I think if you are really working at this, you can find words and instructions from someone just like Louie did with Carlin.

But remember, Louie also was out doing standup for 15 years in the clubs...

The Ariyapariyesana Sutta records that the Buddha studied under two meditation teachers: Alara Kalama, who reportedly taught him to attain ‘the sphere of nothingness’, and Uddaka Ramaputta, who guided him towards ‘the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception’...it says on the internet.

I don't understand why we constantly run in this circle about whether Buddha studied with a teacher or not.

It feels to me that most (perhaps not all) teachers say that Zen and "spiritual practice" in general points us back to just being ourselves.

Just like Brad says in the aforementioned post.

Louie C.K. became himself as a comedian, found his own voice. He did not just do an impression of George Carlin.

Brad sounds NOTHING like Gudo.

We each have our own style, our own voice, our own perspective. That's how it is. I've seen teachers that encourage true "mimicking" of their behavior, tone of voice, word choices, even how they dress.

That is a path which leads absolutely nowhere, imo.

We are already ourselves. We have access to who we are no matter what. if you don't see that a teacher isn't strictly a necessity than I feel you may have missed something along the way.

However, a teacher helps. Seeing it in action helps a lot. But some people just need a glimpse of it while others need to study that person inside and out for a lifetime...

Granted, I don't have all the answers here. But it feels like we sometimes miss the point of this whole thing. The teacher is not it. It can't be it. The teacher is simply themselves, and that's what we're learning.

BTW, very few people are truly themselves in this world, which is what makes it difficult to figure out.

By the way, I'm sure Louie C.K. had lots of other teachers/mentors and friends (a comedy sangha of sorts) coming up.

But then I see this kid, an internet phenomenon named Bo Burnham.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Burnham

This kid is really, really sharp. Sure, he might have watched some George Carlin tapes or whatever, but basically he's self taught. I don't see any reason why this type of person can't exist in the zen world.

First of all, run away from anyone who is "enlightened." They are full of shit.

That being said, are you asking about a bunch of people interested in Buddhism getting together and talking about Buddhism online? I think it has its merits. Do I think it's enough? No. I really don't.

As for me, I admit I've had trouble finding a teacher in my area, and gave up to pursue other Buddhist paths. I agree that Zen and other meditation-oriented sects work best when a reputable and experience instructor is there to help guide you. The same is true for esoteric sects like Shingon or Tibetan Buddhism.

Having someone as a teacher/mentor whatever, seems to really help point out one's own "blind spots" among other benefits. It's not about submitting to one's authority, it's more about benefitting from someone else's "professional" expertise.

"Comparing myself with the Buddha" is a nonsensical phrase. For a bunch of reasons.

Anyway, here in the west our understanding of a religious teacher is informed by our social and spiritual traditions. Approaching a teacher with any expectation of "receiving" something or of seeing the teacher as possessing some special knowledge is missing the mark by miles. Better to sit with your back straight in a room with other practitioners and leave all that teacher nonsense behind.

Thanks for sharing this Brad! I've recently started to watch Louis CK's tv show and have been consistently impressed. There were some moments that felt very distinctly buddhist, though I can't remember specifically right now. If you watch it let us know what you think!

"Like the sages of the Upanishads, Siddartha practiced yoga and meditation. At Vaishali to learn meditative concentration he studied with Alara Kalama*, who was said to have had hundreds of disciples. Siddartha soon learned how to reach the formless world, but still having mental anxieties he decided not to become a disciple of Alara Kalama. Nor did he become a disciple of his second teacher, Uddaka Ramaputra, after he attained the higher state of consciousness beyond thought and non-thought.

Still not satisfied, Siddartha decided to practice the path of extreme austerities, and in this quest he was joined by the sage Kaundinya and four others. He pressed his tongue against his palate to try to restrain his mind until the perspiration poured from his armpits. He restrained his breath and heard the violent sounds of wind in his ears and head. He went into trances, and some thought he was dead. He fasted for long periods of time and then decided to try limiting his food to the juice of beans and peas. As his flesh shrank, the bones almost stuck out of his skin so that he could touch his spine from the front; after sitting on the ground his imprint looked like a camel's footprint."http://www.san.beck.org/EC9-Buddha.html

Sorry, it's not my answer... a wiki cop-out.

Chas

* Buddha's lecture (discourse) to the Kalamas:"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

IMO, most teachers (me too???) are experts and therefore incapable of even remembering what "enlightened" might have been like (as if they were ever there*). Mileage may vary, batteries not included.

Therefore, I reserve the right to fail another 9,999 times** - if necessary. To be reborn a cabbage, a fox, or whatever...

The serious answer is NO.

The Buddha's last words were: "Decay is inherent in all things! Work out your own salvation with diligence."

cheers,Chas

*enlightenment, realization, awakening, understanding is essentially that first awareness you are alive - somewhat immediately after taking your first breath... then it happens again when you realize (around age 7) you are a independent entity... then it happens again when (usually around age 14) you realize you are dependent - and have a rebellion to the same - and it happens again when you see all things connected and dependent (age 21 to 36, for most).

Brad said... "Lewis drew the connection between what Louis C.K. says in this clip and the idea of having a teacher in Buddhism. I thought it was a brilliant and very apt connection. What Louis C.K. says he learned from George Carlin reminds me a lot of what I learned from my teachers Tim McCarthy and Gudo Nishijima. Louis C.K. did not set out to remake himself in the image of George Carlin. He didn't copy Carlin's offstage behavior. He didn't tell jokes that Carlin made up. He didn't set himself up as the new George Carlin.

And yet he learned the deeper truth embedded in Carlin's work and he learned how to make that truth his own. He learned how to express George Carlin's approach to comedy in his own way. If Carlin had had a lineage to pass on, he would have been right in passing it on to Louis C.K."

If George Carlin had had a lineage to pass on, he wouldn't have been George Carlin. The same applies to Louis C.K. This is obviously just an example of someone who's inspired by someone, but who can think for himself. In other words, someone whose mind is not polluted by the idea of any 'lineage'. That's just how the real world works outside the fishbowl, folks.

I have read Eastern philosophy for close to 30 years. After reading Hardcore Zen I bought a zafu and have been sitting everyday for over three years now. I keep on reading if you don't have a teacher it aint going to work and if you really were serious you would find one, etc. Now I read this post and quite frankly I'm over it, I'm convinced about the teacher thing so good by zazen and thanks for all the fish.

Yesterday @ 10.3am I wrote, re the Buddha's two teachers, "...not that the Buddha was too impressed with them." I should have written "...not that the Buddha was too impressed by the results." The teachers were most likely very decent, capable chaps. It was ‘the sphere of nothingness’ and ‘the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception’ that didn't cut it for Gautama, says the sutta.

I've found teachers very useful for clarifying things that have confused me - and I've found plenty of things in the theory and practice of Buddhism confusing. If you're not confused, I guess you don't need a teacher.

Ah par­lia­men­tary pro­ce­dure. There’s no mean­ing­ful dif­fer­ence be­tween Yea and Aye, and Nay and No. They both mean “I vote in favor” or “I vote against”. The dif­fer­ence is just a mat­ter of pro­ce­dure. The Con­sti­tu­tion ac­tu­al­ly re­quires “Yea” and “Nay” for votes on the pas­sage of bills (Ar­ti­cle I Sec­tion 7), and so the House and Sen­ate both do that for those par­tic­u­lar votes.http://www.govtrack.us/blog/2009/11/18/aye-versus-yea-whats-the-difference/

Grumpy old Gotama, as he lay dying, specifically disavowed the notion that you need a teacher to understand your own true nature:

"It may be that after my death you will think that you have no teacher. It should not be seen like this, Ananda, for what I have taught and explained to you as the Dharma and training will, at my passing, become your teacher."

It seems to me that he never intended a successor. But I'm fairly certain Jesus never envisioned St. Peter's Cathedral either. Shit happens.

I have read Eastern philosophy for close to 30 years. After reading Hardcore Zen I bought a zafu and have been sitting everyday for over three years now. I keep on reading if you don't have a teacher it ain't going to work and if you really were serious you would find one, etc. Now I read this post and quite frankly I'm over it, I'm convinced about the teacher thing so goodbye zazen and thanks for all the fish.

I guess I'm supposed to react with great concern and try to convince you to stick with it. But I suspect that won't be necessary. If you stop after 3 years of daily practice the subsequent state of your own body & mind will be enough to get you started again. It always worked with me that way, anyhow.

Some people get upset at the insistence that you need a teacher. I imagine that they suspect the next line is, "And I'll be your teacher for just a small monthly payment."

That's not going to happen with me. Just ask all the people who've said they want to be my student. I don't take students. This is not a come-on.

I've explained a number of times in print and on line why I feel one needs a Zen teacher. So I won't do that again here. What I will repeat is that you can sit by yourself for a long time before this comes up.

You also don't need to live with a teacher. You don't need to be initiated by a teacher. You don't need to serve a teacher. The teacher is not an authority figure anymore than a painting teacher is an authority figure to someone who wants to paint (which means perhaps & perhaps not).

Still, it's not something one does by oneself. I, for one, often wish it were. Because I'm pretty anti-social. But it's not.

It may be so in the USA, but there are still regions of the anglosaxophone world where "aye" is the current way of saying "yes". This is how I learned English, and I still tend to answer "aye" instead of "yes".

There is no mirror, there is no dust to wipe, there is no student, there is no teacher, there is nopath, there is no one to postulate, there is no self, thereis no one to be enlightened, there is no one sitting, there is no You.

In the USA, when we threw out the Brits (1776) and the Anglicans (a.k.a. church of england) with them (Anglicans went to Canada to remain Loyalists), our founding fathers wanted to differentiate agreement "Yea" from the Brit. "Aye."

A good read (written at the time) is "Fart Proudly" a collection of Franklin's writing you don't read in school.

Mysterion, I would like to extend you an offer to become a teacher at my sangha. We need one more good teacher to put us over the top. We're hoping to add both you and Chet to round out our faculty of enlightened teachers.

Gniz, I think there's some indication that Louis C.K. knew George Carlin personally. He says Carlin's daughter called him on the phone. It is unclear, I grant you. But I took it as evidence they knew each other.

I think you need some kind of in-person relationship in Zen practice. Books and videos don't tell you to get over yourself. Or, if they do, you can pretend they're talking to somebody else.

Besides, there are a couple of kinds of "knowledge."Declarative knowledge is like: "Xmas is a holiday in America." (So what?)

or:

"Buddha said belching is rude."

Both of those can be looked up in books.

Procedural knowledge like "Sitting posture in Zazen."

THAT can not be learned from a book. It is learned by DOING - perhaps with "guided practice."

Wisdom - LOL.

Wisdom is what old huxter gurus claim they have and try to sell to the foolish - like snake oil.

Wisdom is defined in terms like: "Reasoning, resilience and responsibility (e.g. the three "Rs") are key problem solving skills that, when learned, can benefit individual goal achievement and help formulate general life success strategies."

You develop and grow the three Rs. They are not handed to you like Athena, fully formed from the head of Zeus.

The local Yoga franchise can help you with your sitting posture. That is a necessary thing to do.

This link is good because: "Before we take a look at these seated meditation postures, let me emphasize that while meditation is great, it can cause pain in the body, especially if you try to sit in full lotus without preparing for it. So, learn from my mistakes…"

It gets better (but you kinda don't notice it...)

I'll throw this out for what it's worth. My heart valve was getting a little less effective month by month over the last 4 or 5 years but I didn't notice it. The incremental change was so slight that I didn't notice any change at all. It took an external observer to see the change.

So, after a couple of years habitually sitting Zazen someone you have known for a while might just walk up to you and say: "Wow, you handles that stressful situation rather well."

"In the Greek of Paul’s day, mysterion was primarily understood to mean a religious secret confided only to the initiated and withheld from ordinary mortals. Such secret religious sects were typical of the ancients, both Roman and Greek."

The Searcher can not see the One,because it is the One that is doing the seeing through the fiction's eyes. To say that "you"will be free if you sit in a particular manner with guidance from a teacher is utter nonsence.

And charging $50,000 for this activity is funnier than any of Mr.Carlin's jokes.

"(mysterion was)a religious secret confided only to the initiated and withheld from ordinary mortals."

Yeah and alot of good thats done everybody, huh?

All cabals and secret societies, mystery schools and etc. and on & on with their "specialized knowledge" have done what exactly to change humankind, suffering, and general conditions of life for the better?

I've arrived at a point in my zen practice that I truly realize the importance of making this world the paradise all humans want by simply being compassionate to my fellow beings. But a few certain people in my life continue to rub me raw. And I continue my selfish coldness towards them in response. How does one handle this dilemma? Please, I need some wisdom. Gimme sum truth!

"I've arrived at a point in my zen practice that I truly realize the importance of making this world the paradise all humans want by simply being compassionate to my fellow beings. But a few certain people in my life continue to rub me raw. And I continue my selfish coldness towards them in response. How does one handle this dilemma? Please, I need some wisdom. Gimme sum truth!"

There is something about this practice that draws out these children. They think that there's some pattern to follow or some flow chart to life, and that some online "words of wisdom" will fix them right up. Inevitably, these same people end up jacking each other off at sites like Treeleaf.

"I think the way we treat others better is to first begin treating ourselves better."

With respect, that has little to no relevance with respect to what we're talking about. Is your message to this guy to treat himself better? Is that the "wisdom" that you think he needs? I happen to believe that my words are more what he needs, the cretin.

He's not looking for platitudes, is he? You could also tell him to meditate more, to observe the Golden Rule, to observe the Grave Precepts or anything thing else that might serve to take up space yet help nothing. (Much like a Mysterion post!)

"There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter. All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all. Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error. Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal. Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness. Therefore man is not material; he is spiritual."

Brad...lil question..I had a pretty regular teacher for couple years but no longer due to circumstances. I met a local teacher who I chatted with and the 1/2 hr talk filled me with doubt and frustration that I've 'gotten nowhere'.. I wanted to quit but of course I can't ..theres no quitting this path - and I wonder if I needed to be thrown for a loop like this, or maybe this is not the teacher for me. He seems to put up a wall of separation like HE knows but all the students are clueless... But we ALL go thru the delusion before we see clearly--most teachers seem to also talk that way but this guy doesnt and I dunno if its just me and my insulted ego or maybe I"m just not used to his teaching style.. augh. I pondered asking him re this.. what do you think? Thanks:)Georgia

Everyone , please consider the following words of this Great Teacher of our time on the subject of Teachers...

His Divine Presence, Parama-Sapta-Na Adi Da, Says: “Everyone transmits. All of you are transmitters. Each one of you emits invisible forces. Those forces are locked up in your limited messages, and they reinforce the same limitations in others. People are all indulging in a kind of ‘communion’ with one another, and the state of the ‘world’ proves the potency of this ‘transmission’. Realizers of one or another degree of Spiritual development likewise (by nature) spontaneously Transmit What they Are. What they have Realized Transmits Itself, subtly as well as grossly, by what they do, by what they are, by what they feel. Those less developed, Transmit their Realization, and those more developed Transmit their more advanced Realization. Because I have Realized That Which Is Inherently Perfect, I Transmit That Condition to you. Such Transmission is inevitable, and It is an absolute Law. This is why traditionally it is said that the best thing you can do, among all the things you must do--and you must do many things--the best among them, the chief among them, is to spend time in the Company of a Real-God-Realizer.” Lord Adi Da goes on to Say: “Everything transmits: the stones transmit, the sky does, the TV does. Since everything and everyone transmits states of ‘existence’, since life, or ‘existence’ itself, is participation in transmissions of all kinds, the best thing you can do is to associate with the greatest possible Transmission. Since everything is transmission, spend time in the Company of the One Who Spontaneously Transmits That Which Is Inherently Perfect and Ultimate. This is the great rule, the Great Law, the Ultimate Principle of the Great Tradition.” -Adi Da Samraj-

Look at this comment stream. Towards the top you have comments that refer to the post for the most part. This moves into comments referring to each other. And finally there's us anonymous just comment spamming all over the place.

This is what thought is like, right? There's some foreground stuff that the mind likes to think is meaningful and important because it's "relevant" or "on topic" then there's a trail of associated thoughts that play off each other. Then there's a background hum of half formed bad ideas and pieces of things sticking up from the deep murk of that which must not be thought in the light.

Interesting what people think is funny. This is a guy trying to make a career by making people laugh. Because he wanted to be like someone else. Sad.Some people just are funny or have humorous moments. Now that people plan careers on being funny it's not funny. It's aggressive and gross. Not funny at all. This guy is the sad clown because he didn't get the attention he needed or wanted or was denied. Things that are funny are not planned. Pretty much why brad lacks a lot humor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofko6NG0HQI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxWtuCkI-P4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtjx-yplqTw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWeV8ZR3wUg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMe8-pINEGs&feature=related

No notice how someone who is funny handles this situation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di5j13t5xnE&feature=related

Maybe brad can go on tour with Sock monkey and do Genpo jokes. Oh. ....wait , that what he does...

Brad...lil question..I had a pretty regular teacher for couple years but no longer due to circumstances. I met a local teacher who I chatted with and the 1/2 hr talk filled me with doubt and frustration that I've 'gotten nowhere'.. I wanted to quit but of course I can't ..theres no quitting this path - and I wonder if I needed to be thrown for a loop like this, or maybe this is not the teacher for me. He seems to put up a wall of separation like HE knows but all the students are clueless... But we ALL go thru the delusion before we see clearly--most teachers seem to also talk that way but this guy doesnt and I dunno if its just me and my insulted ego or maybe I"m just not used to his teaching style..augh. I pondered asking him re this.. what do you think? Thanks:)Georgia

Uhhhh... It's hard to tell what you're asking here. The feeling of having gotten nowhere is pretty much universal. There isn't anywhere to get to, really.

A teacher who puts up a wall that he knows but students are clueless, that sounds not so good. However are you sure that's what he is intending? If he is, that's a problem. But sometimes students think that about teachers who are not intending any such thing.

"...whether people are following a good spiritual teacher or following the Scriptures, all such persons are following their True Self. The Scriptural texts are, naturally, the Scriptural texts of Self, and good spiritual teachers are, naturally, good spiritual teachers of Self. Thus, you should investigate through your training that thorough training means thoroughly training oneself, that studying the hundreds of things which sprout up like grass means studying oneself, that studying the myriad things that take root and branch out like trees means studying oneself, and that this self is, of necessity, synonymous with making such an effort. By exploring like this through your training, you drop off self and you promise enlightenment to yourself.Shobogenzo, Jisho Zammai, Hubert Nearman trans.

... and just to add mention that the criteria Dogen laid down for recognising a 'good teacher' is that they should be 'stout' and practical... as opposed, say, aloof and 'mystical'.

Yeah, not sure how faithful that is to Moses' stone tablets, and it might be a waste of time checking it against the Gudo/Cross trans. as one of the quirks of that fine effort is the avoidance of the 'E' word, or anything that might be construed in translation as resembling it as a sudden event (ala the spiritual bling of dirty, heathenish 'kensho').

Still, despite that dirty 'E' word that makes baby Jesus cry and has my eyes swelling with puss (if we can see into and past the word, that is), it's an interesting way of putting it: Dropping off the self as a promise of enlightenment to the self... what 'self' is left to 'get it'? ;-)

I'm afraid I can't trust any of the results of Hubert Nearman's immense and sincere efforts. Seems to me he makes it all up as he goes along. I prefer my translations of difficult old texts to be as literal as possible - allowing me to make it all up as I go along. Just sayin.

Your link is a salutory reminder that I've little or no idea what a "literal translation" of SBGZ might look like. I've taken the word of others that, by and large, the N/C translation is pretty close to literal. But sure, consideration of everything else out there can only be a good thing.

"Dropping off the self as a promise of enlightenment to the self... what 'self' is left to 'get it'? ;-)"

Many Zen types seem very enamoured of this "no self" business (I don't know about Harry - he just asked the question) and often chime in approvingly whenever 'no-self' gets a mention...As if post-satori/kensho the sense of self - or even your 'actual' self(?) - melts away...As if that's a good thing...As if the goal of Buddhism is to cease to have a self; an 'ego'; any sense of being a separate individual; any sense(s)! Perhaps such people believe they themselves(?!) have experienced(!) such a state. Perhaps they enjoyed the feeling(¿) and want to get it back(???). Such views make no sense to me.

Here's a view of "no self" that does makes some sense to me:

http://www.dogensangha.org.uk/PDF/theoryofnoself.pdf

Any individual selves out there got any dissenting personal opinions about all this?

From several perspectives the doctrine of anatta is a very valid view (when it's realised directly, that is): for example, in counterpoint to the conventional view that there is an abiding, autonomous being that is separate from everything else; the 'self' that is constructed in clinging to the skhandas. This 'self' does not exist in the way we generally think it to and perceive it to... so, I wouldn't discount the whole 'anatta/no-self' thing off hand.

One of the interesting things about Dogen is that he expressed things very positively (not exclusively so tho) where Zen had tended to be obscure and negate things philosophically, and so he enjoyed expressing the state of practice as realising 'non-buddha', as our realising real, concrete things as the self (tiles, pebbles, stone lanterns, fences...), and asking who it was that 'held up the head of buddha' in practice etc etc. This need not be at odds with the theory of anatta when its realised directly in our own practice, because it is not a philosophical point essentially. As we know, nothing exists on such simple, binary terms.

It's called 'first path' & it's when the meditator directly knows the sea of energy that includes all processes our awareness attributes to self. If everything is drawn on graph paper, it's like seeing the graph paper. The 'self' collection keeps happening afterwards but the awareness doesn't cling to it as much. This is from Theravadan tradition.

The view that there is no separate, permanent, immaterial essence/self inhabiting the material body makes sense to me, particularly as I live in a rational, scientific age - an age heralded by such thinkers as Gautama Buddha. But neither that view, nor any other, can express the actual/real situation.

And so Gautama Buddha, as I understand him, taught the middle way, the true dharma, in order that such views and their 'binary'/dialectical opposites might be relinquished: 'neither self nor no-self'. That makes more sense to me, and seems in accord with the actual/real situation.

But some are enticed by "the relinquishing of views", by "emptiness", by "no-self" into a black cave of phantoms as unreal as the city of Ghandarva - a magic city with no fences, walls, tiles, lanterns or pebbles.

The world is full of bloody infidels, no matter how much my pet theories seem to make sense to me personally. Thankfully that needn't be a barrier to my practicing it sincerely.

I think when I start judging the efforts of others (in comparison to mine, say, as opposed to from the genuine perspective of my more sincere efforts, which are not done in reference to a 'self' or 'other') I fall from the realm of sincere effort into the realm of my very own stone-dead religion.

It doesn't matter one way or t'other to me, Malc. Apologies are cold comfort after the fact. I was just pointing out a tendency in myself , and this non-thing called 'Dogen Sangha', that you piqued in our talking of our wonderful sense-making theories of everything.

People should be aware of the tendency towards embattled philosophical intransigence and superiority in this sangha, and in themselves, if it's the Buddha-dharma they're really interested in. The buddha is a thoroughly homeless bum, a beggar with nowhere to go/hide everywhere he goes. Nests are so easy to build, in comparison (I do it all the time).

I don't think Brad reads much fiction anymore. I could be wrong but there is only so much time in the day and he has You-tube, listening to music, collecting figurines, reading and writing zen books, his girls, his talks.. Whew! And then there are his favorite TV shows to watch.. Who has time for literature?

There may not be a "perfect" translation, but there are certainly translations that aim to render the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of an original text into another language as closely as possible. Most folks call those translations "literal" - to contrast with "free" or "interpretive" translations.

I'm given to understand that literal translation is very difficult - perhaps impossible - to accomplish from medieval Chinese/Japanese to any modern European language. But a comparison of any passage from the Nishijima/Cross Shobogenzo (or, from what little I've seen of it, from the Tanahashi version) with the same passage from the Hubert Nearman version will clearly demonstrate the difference between 'literal' and the 'interpretive' approaches. It's no mystery.

Of course, a literal translation is no guarantee that a reader stands a better chance of inferring an author's intended meaning. I was merely stating my personal preference for a translation that allows me to come as close as possible to the experience of reading the original. That way, I feel, I stand a better chance of understanding the text, unhindered by the efforts of an intermediary wanting to do the work for me; to save me the bother of 'getting it wrong'. I want to do it myself. It's a kind of arrogance.

And so I wrote, "I prefer my translations of difficult old texts to be as literal as possible - allowing me to make it all up as I go along."

Kurt Vonnegut had a great quote that went something a long the lines of " The most interesting people seem to be forty something year olds that don't know what to do with their lives". I love that being I'm in that age range and have no idea.

Brad, you say you read a lot so I take it that would be non-fiction. What non-fiction writers do you like to read?

What about painters/artists any favorites? We know what music you like but any painters?

I love charles bukowski. I don't drink but I still love his writing.I think the guy really understood how to write a line. The beauty of the line. Like on his grave stone " Dont try" .

Have you ever read David Foster Wallace? If you so what do you think of his writing?

Thanks again Not Brad. Wow, I'm excited . Everything I seem to pick up lately just falls flat. I can't even finish half of them. I'm not a big fan of DFW but found" him" more interesting. There's a Charlie Rose interview with DFW and the guy just can't sit still. Tons of stuff going on. That's when I went back to him and for some reason had a clearer experience. As for Bukowski well, I'm a old time Angelino and bought all my Books from Red's books store off of Hollywood blvd. Not there anymore. Buk wrote about Red and stocked him full of his books. Red went to Buks wedding.Red turned me onto Fante and " Ask the dust" and more and more. They wrote about the L.A. I knew. not the Hollywood of today. Ellroy's My dark places hit home too. I left L.A. Five years ago now. I'll never go back . Not even for a visit.

I just reread Ask The Dust this summer, after (what, 20?) many years. It held up well. Looking around, I found his son Dan Fante writes. I got a copy of 86'd, & its on a pile somewhere around here. Check out his website sometime.

Yeah I remember Buk writing about Red. Thanks for the links!

I really got into Vollman this year, if you check him out (assuming you haven't), try Rainbow Stories or Expelled From Eden before getting into the longer stuff.

Another very good recent read was Charlie Huston's The Mystic Art of Erasing All Signs of Death.

If I may chime in ... here is a link on DFW about humor http://tinyurl.com/Dfwhumor.I think it relates well to the poster who didn't think Louis is funny but a sad clown. I agree . He is not funny. Most Americans think he is funny. a lot of americans drink coke. For the most part Louis is just regurgitating Carlin. Modeling him for his own consumption. I too question brads intent. As should he. Or at least brad should look into good literature. Other wise he's just writing infomercial for zen http://tinyurl.com/5s8uc8g